TTT!!!

[Da Boss]

It should also be remembered that several SA's have the added bonus that is they are lost during the turn - for instacne CBD / CAF then the you can fire all guns or at multiple targets with no penalty as you are no longer bound by its restrictions................can work very well on occassions.

I prefer the following TTT - hence the inclusion in my somewhat bias house rules (v 1.1)


Track that Target! CQ: 9 / 8 (if a target is announced when the action is declared)
Despite the limitations of the large beam weapon systems on younger race ships, skilled crews can use the limited traverse ability to maintain a lock on a moving target.
When successfully carried out, this Special Action allows this ship to fire one bore sighted weapon as if it were the wider respective arc at one half AD. For example a B(f) arc beam can then be fired (at ½ AD) in the F arc. If you declare the target when you announce the target you may only fire the designated weapon at the targeted ship but the CQ check required is reduced to 8.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

In some cases, the drawback of not being able to use a SA can be enough of a penalty. In others though, yes they should retain penalties when they fail.
On the other hand, the arguement that it would be setting a precedent for TTT to have a drawback for failure is null and void - another SA has already set that precedent.

As it currently is, TTT is overpowered, and having a penalty for failure would be a useful balancer and make sense. Without such a penalty, I would be looking at something closer to CQ10 (and still having to declare your target beforehand).


With regards to losing SAs during the turn being a bonus, that is also something that is pretty broken. In the other thread there's complaints about how upsetting it is to suffer the more powerful criticals - they're nothing compared to the feeling when you cause a crit and it removes CBD from a target just when you're running out of things to fire at it and it's getting ready to fire.

 

[Burger]

As it currently is, TTT is overpowered, and having a penalty for failure would be a useful balancer

I disagree. Reducing its power so that it is not overpowered is better than giving it penalties for failure. Yes it is overpowered ATM... so fix it. Make it only use half ADs when firing off boresight.

Of course another problem with TTT is that it allows you to fire on targets you wouldn't normall be able to, regardless of initiative. If a target is 135 degrees behind your Warbird then you can turn 2x 45 and TTT, enabling you to hit it. Even though "tracking" it wouldn't be possible because it never flew "through" your boresight!

 

[nekomata fuyu]

As it currently is, TTT is overpowered, and having a penalty for failure would be a useful balancer

I disagree. Reducing its power so that it is not overpowered is better than giving it penalties for failure. Yes it is overpowered ATM... so fix it. Make it only use half ADs when firing off boresight.

And up the CQ check.
We're going to have to disagree on the plausibility of failure drawbacks though. Part of this game's problems though seems to be that common sense resolutions are frowned upon, even if they would also be one of the easier options. Failed to succeed? No problem, we'll just pretend you didn't even try!

Of course another problem with TTT is that it allows you to fire on targets you wouldn't normall be able to, regardless of initiative. If a target is 135 degrees behind your Warbird then you can turn 2x 45 and TTT, enabling you to hit it. Even though "tracking" it wouldn't be possible because it never flew "through" your boresight!

Yet another reason why I put together the Snapshop SA, where you actually have to get the target into arc at some point to be able to fire.

 

[Foxmeister]

Failed to succeed? No problem, we'll just pretend you didn't even try!

That depends on how you see it working in "reality"

You could see it as:

CAPTAIN: I need a firing solution on the Sharlin. Engineering, can you give me a wider arc on the main beam?
ENGINEERING: Well, we could try recalibrating the focussing lenses
(TTT check made, but failed)
ENGINEERING: Sorry sir, I've adjusted as far as I'm able but we just can't get a fix.
CAPTAIN: Damn, wish I'd target that Ashinta that just passed!

i.e. You've tried to do something, it's taken some time, but ultimately you've failed.

However, it could alternatively be seen as:

CAPTAIN: Lieutenant, get me a firing solution on the Sharlin.
(TTT CQ check made but failed).
LIEUTENANT: Sorry sir, they are too far out of weapons arc.
CAPTAIN: Ok, target the Ashinta.

i.e. You want to do something, but you're told it's not possible before you've expended much time/effort on it.

ACTA seems to work on the second principle. Hence, if you try to Come About and fail, it's because it wasn't possible, not that you tried and failed.

Regards,

Dave

 

[nekomata fuyu]

Captain: Come about hard to port!
Helmsman: Sorry sir, we can't turn faster then specification.
Captain: Why not? You did it 5 minutes ago!
Helmsman: Can't be bothered sir, so I won't even try.

Somehow the above seems less likely than the crew actually pulling together to try and turn the ship faster, possibly succeeding and possibly not depending on how well they can work together.

One problem is that ACTA doesn't seem to work on any principle, or at least, any resemblance of priciples to mechanics are entirely coincidental. TTT for example states that it's to do with snapping off a shot rather than recalibrating the beam to cover the forward arc.

This is also where your second example breaks down. The target being out of arc is nothing to do with the CQ check. If you pass the check but the target moves out of arc, you can't fire regardless.

 

[Foxmeister]

One problem is that ACTA doesn't seem to work on any principle, or at least, any resemblance of priciples to mechanics are entirely coincidental. TTT for example states that it's to do with snapping off a shot rather than recalibrating the beam to cover the forward arc.

Not exactly - it says both re-calibrating and getting a snap shot off:

Re-calibrating its main weaponry, the ship sacrifices power to get a snap shot off at a fleeting target

It also says that it sacrifices power, but we're not seeing that in the rule anymore!

This is also where your second example breaks down. The target being out of arc is nothing to do with the CQ check. If you pass the check but the target moves out of arc, you can't fire regardless.

No, you are being too literal by applying the ACTA rules to something that is supposed to resemble a "real world" interaction. "Out of arc" in this context has nothing to do with the ACTA concept of firing arcs, and everything to do with whether or not the gunner can actually target the desired ship.

In the Flames Of War rulebook, Phil Yates has a really good design notes section, where he describes the intention that the rules are results based - and that ultimately it is the result of an action that matters, and not the mechanics of the action itself. I see ACTA in a very similar vein (and BF Evo for that matter)

In this case, in much the same way, it is the end result that matters. If you make the CQ check, the end result is that you can fire on your desired target if it is in your F arc (or A arc for B(a) weapons), whereas if you fail you have to take a secondary target in B arc (or B(a) arc).

Regards,

Dave

 

[CZuschlag]

Of course another problem with TTT is that it allows you to fire on targets you wouldn't normall be able to, regardless of initiative. If a target is 135 degrees behind your Warbird then you can turn 2x 45 and TTT, enabling you to hit it. Even though "tracking" it wouldn't be possible because it never flew "through" your boresight!

I thought about this a while ago, and came to the conclusion that this aspect of balance is inaccurate; for the cost of 1 more on your CQ check, you could have hit a Come About, been set up on a following course, and be actually well and truly boresighted on the target.

So TTT becomes a less glam and less sustainable (long-term) alternative for boresight ships to Come About -- you get the shot, but you lose position for 1 CQ less. That's pretty level.

 

[AdrianH]

One way to prevent TTT being abused to hit a target which can't possibly be boresighted is to require that you keep a turn back to use with TTT. Successfully using TTT allows you to make that turn to boresight a target which moved after you.

So if that Warbird declares TTT against a target, it can only make one of its normal two turns during its move. If the target then moves into its forward arc, the Warbird can make another turn of up to 45 degrees to boresight the target. What it can't do is make another turn of 45 degrees and then attack something further round than where it is now pointing - it can only hit a target which moved to within 90 degrees of the Warbird's original heading, and then only if its first 45 degree turn went the right way. Given that this makes TTT harder to use, a lower CQ value might be in order.

I don't like the idea of reducing the beam's power. If the ship managed to bring its gun to bear, it should be able to fire the lot. The exception might be ships whose beam is really two guns, one on either side of the ship, e.g. the Omega or the G'Quan; such ships could then choose to use half strength in forward arc as only one of the pair is firing. This need not involve a special action, it's inherent in how the weapon is built.

 

[Burger]

One way to prevent TTT being abused to hit a target which can't possibly be boresighted is to require that you keep a turn back to use with TTT. Successfully using TTT allows you to make that turn to boresight a target which moved after you.

Yeah, that was one of the original ideas for TTT - IMO a much better one!

CQ8, you must save a turn and make all the usual turn requirements (ie move at least half speed and move 2" since the last turn or 1" if you're agile). Declare a target, you may not fire on any other targets this turn. At the end of the movement phase you must use the saved turn to boresight the target. If the turn is not enough to reach the target you must turn as far as you are allowed in the direction of the target.

 

[Ripple]

Yup, I've pushed for that one for years now, but the powers that be disagree with it. Some people were very much against any movement out of the regular sequence, somehow seeing some way to get advantage out of fixed movement.

Eh...

Ripple

 

[Burger]

Yeah the target is specified in the movement phase, so the actual final turn being performed out of sequence is really irrelevant, it can't be adjusted based on your opponents movements, or cancelled, so I don't see how it can be abused. :wink:
In fact if this were in the game I would support White Star going Boresight!

The current TTT is much more open to abuse.

 

[Da Boss]

One way to prevent TTT being abused to hit a target which can't possibly be boresighted is to require that you keep a turn back to use with TTT. Successfully using TTT allows you to make that turn to boresight a target which moved after you.

Yeah, that was one of the original ideas for TTT - IMO a much better one!

CQ8, you must save a turn and make all the usual turn requirements (ie move at least half speed and move 2" since the last turn or 1" if you're agile). Declare a target, you may not fire on any other targets this turn. At the end of the movement phase you must use the saved turn to boresight the target. If the turn is not enough to reach the target you must turn as far as you are allowed in the direction of the target.

I'll stick this version in the next update of my House Rules compliation as well

 

[AdrianH]

Minor point of pedantry: the boresight weapon may not fire on any other target, but presumably any other weapons on the ship are free to shoot at whatever they can. This isn't like CBD or All Hands on Deck, where gun crews are taken off their weapons to do something else, nor is power being taken away from the secondaries; the ship is merely making the turn which it could normally make anyway.

 

[Burger]

Yep precisely, it is simply getting around the boresight/initiative sink problem.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

I can understand the basis of the half AD being that you don't get as much time to rake your boresight over your target when you're trying to get a snapshot off, but if that were the case you'd have the same problem when you failed to get a snapshot off and turned back to firing at your backup target - something that a lot of people don't want to happen.

Personally I still think the easiest method would just be to say that you must bring your target into arc for the weapons your snapshoting at some point during your move. Basically, the SA is saying "you're firing these weapons at this point of your movement rather than at the end", but you still leave the actual weapon resolution until the firing phase as normal.

 

[Ripple]

Two issues I have with that is that it hurts maneuverable ships a lot more than slow ships. Effectively it changes the balance of power between ships types rather than just ship numbers.

We're not trying to say a Demos can't slip past an Omega, we're trying to say a Primus can't stand in front of an Omega because a pack of Havens are dancing on the head of a pin in the corner.

Scenario, move demos up early in turn one and Omega boresights it, gets a shot. Second turn move Omega first and get a second shot, because you can't move before it fires. You just doubled the Omega's beam firepower against a maneuverable ship, rather than forcing the beam across multiple ships.

Second issue is why doesn't such a rule apply to all guns as a fluff issue. Why can't I snap shot with my side guns as I go past another ship? Why can't I snap shot all my guns in one turn... running between a number of ships and popping every gun that gets in arc over the course of the movement.

Ripple

 

[nekomata fuyu]

Scenario, move demos up early in turn one and Omega boresights it, gets a shot. Second turn move Omega first and get a second shot, because you can't move before it fires. You just doubled the Omega's beam firepower against a maneuverable ship, rather than forcing the beam across multiple ships.

Second turn: Omega maybe gets a second shot off. Well, unless you're using weighted dice and can guarantee passing the CQ check.

Second issue is why doesn't such a rule apply to all guns as a fluff issue. Why can't I snap shot with my side guns as I go past another ship? Why can't I snap shot all my guns in one turn... running between a number of ships and popping every gun that gets in arc over the course of the movement.

I see no reason to limit such snapshots to boresight weapons either. You would only be able to snapshot at one point during movement though, so you'd still be limited on how many arcs you could fire at the target. This I can see as acceptable depending on how hard the CQ check is and how the SA is written.

Personally, I'd say that when using snapshot, you fire the weapons at the specified point of movement regardless - the CQ check is a check to hit in effect. There's a precedent for this too - when you fail a stealth check you still count as having fired. This would mean that you could fire extra arcs at a target, but you're more likely to get an effect from your extra weapons if you were to point them at a second target in a conventional manner instead.

 

[katadder]

makes forward arc fleets like centauri and especially ISS with higher CQ alot nastier and broken. WS does snapshot as it flies by, blows the crap out of you but ends up behind you out of arc and range.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

But half the time fires and misses instead, so it's effectively halving its AD. And the WS is only speed 15, so it would have a hard job being out of range, getting into a firing position, getting out of range again, and not being predictable enough that some other ships in the target fleet can target it instead.